With my Chevy van, if drive 12,000 miles a year at $7 a gallon, that's over $6,200 a year. Obviously, such expensive gas would affect my program hugely. Hardly the "peanuts" that isobars is referring to. No big surprise there, since we all know he's a total airhead.

Really though, the fuel cost to drive your vehicle is only a minor detail, as the price for fuel would ripple big time through our complete economy. It would significantly affect the price of the most products that we buy, even the bare essentials.

While I wouldn't doubt that fuel costs could ultimately escalate through the ceiling, it's only a leading indicator how important it is for America to wean our dependency on oil.

Innovation in new directions is the key to our future. No question, there's no way that Republicans have the vision and creativity to lead us to where we need to go.

I only hope that Obama and the Democrats in Congress can begin to pave a new path for America and not let the losers on the right drag us down.

That's not only unsurprising, but it's peanuts (hardly $2k a year) compared to the tens of thousands Obamacare and Cap & Trade will cost us each year.

Mike \m/

Tea Party mumbo jumbo.

Sorry, but to varying degrees it's CBO, Forbes, hundreds of university business school professors, Warren Buffet, Ken Fisher, Jim Rogers, Weiss Research, a looooooong list of extremely rich financial and statistical analysis and advisory individuals and firms who sell nothing but their own credibility. Your source? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their naive parrot with the teleprompter, all three caught in more proven lies in the last year alone than the Bush haters ever even imagined over 8 years.

You're obviously very young, and it's your call, but with scores of years at stake, I strongly recommend you start doing your own research rather than relying on politicians and Wall Street for your financial advice and security. Get back to us in early 2013 and tell us how your finances, mortgage, and job are doing.

That's not only unsurprising, but it's peanuts (hardly $2k a year) compared to the tens of thousands Obamacare and Cap & Trade will cost us each year.

Mike \m/

Tea Party mumbo jumbo.

Sorry, but to varying degrees it's CBO, Forbes, hundreds of university business school professors, Warren Buffet, Ken Fisher, Jim Rogers, Weiss Research, a looooooong list of extremely rich financial and statistical analysis and advisory individuals and firms who sell nothing but their own credibility. Your source? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their naive parrot with the teleprompter, all three caught in more proven lies in the last year alone than the Bush haters ever even imagined over 8 years.

You're obviously very young, and it's your call, but with scores of years at stake, I strongly recommend you start doing your own research rather than relying on politicians and Wall Street for your financial advice and security. Get back to us in early 2013 and tell us how your finances, mortgage, and job are doing.

ISO , I dont need to wait til 2013 to give you my report. The S&P 500 is up 32% since inauguration of the "parrot", as you refer to him. In 1991-1992, the stock market recovered while the housing market was still in the tank , as well as employment. The script is set, and the economy is going to recover, so keep scaring yourself by reading Weiss Research, but a recovery is now your political enemy.
Boggsman

Interesting that none of you have commented on yeeeeha's post, choosing rather to deflect the conversation to Isobars. The Jeff Jacoby piece is well written and covers many of the reasons why we should all take a long, deep breath before launching into recovery killing taxes on carbon emissions which, in all likelihood, will do little to solve the "problem" but rather will fund more inefficient Federal programs.

One item Jacoby did not mention is the blatant conflict of interest that Pachauri (the head of the IPCC) engaged in while promoting the flawed findings of his Nobel prize winning study (anyone else think that the Nobel panel is looking more ridiculous every day?). Pachauri should be removed along with any others who either deliberately, or negligently produced this fatally flawed document on which government's around the world place so much reliance for their policy making.

To suggest that there is no basis for a healthy distrust of current global warming science is absurd and is symptomatic of the arrogance displayed by a segment of the scientific community when dismissing the arguments of "deniers" or "flat earthers". Scientists should be curious and constantly questioning.......this crowd is neither, they are only interested in convincing us (as opposed to proving) they are right. I'm a long way from buying it.

A partial answer--the billions spent by energy companies last year to convince the readily brain-washed that global warming is a hoax and the energy supply from the middle east is safe and secure.

Mac.........can you please be more specific on last year's brain washing by the energy companies? I am not aware of a single advertisement or other communication from a major energy company to the gullible public, stating that global warming is a hoax or that energy supplies from the Middle East are safe and secure. If they spent billions, it must have been a massive campaign.........I don't know how I could have missed it.

Interesting that none of you have commented on yeeeeha's post, choosing rather to deflect the conversation to Isobars. The Jeff Jacoby piece is well written and covers many of the reasons why we should all take a long, deep breath before launching into recovery killing taxes on carbon emissions which, in all likelihood, will do little to solve the "problem" but rather will fund more inefficient Federal programs.

One item Jacoby did not mention is the blatant conflict of interest that Pachauri (the head of the IPCC) engaged in while promoting the flawed findings of his Nobel prize winning study (anyone else think that the Nobel panel is looking more ridiculous every day?). Pachauri should be removed along with any others who either deliberately, or negligently produced this fatally flawed document on which government's around the world place so much reliance for their policy making.
If Right leaning political spectators have little respect for insitutions like the No

To suggest that there is no basis for a healthy distrust of current global warming science is absurd and is symptomatic of the arrogance displayed by a segment of the scientific community when dismissing the arguments of "deniers" or "flat earthers". Scientists should be curious and constantly questioning.......this crowd is neither, they are only interested in convincing us (as opposed to proving) they are right. I'm a long way from buying it.

If Right leaning political spectators have little respect fo internatinal institutions like the Nobel panel, or the UN, then why do they refernce them in arguments all the time. And Mr. G, dont you think that progressive thought in the US on any subject almost always gets exaggerated when trying to push policy through the beltway? Its amazing the mocking people in the global warming community recieve from commentators who could care less about the environment, and have ZERO knowledge how free markets , and economics work. I read the whole post, I enjoyed, but I am still a pro-environment, pro business person, kind of like Hank Paulson.
Also, be careful when referencing "reovery killing taxes" we taxed the hell out of the individual in 1993 top rate went to 39.6%, and the economy boomed like never before, not cause and effect, but two events that happened simultaneously.

Interesting that none of you have commented on yeeeeha's post, choosing rather to deflect the conversation to Isobars. The Jeff Jacoby piece is well written and covers many of the reasons why we should all take a long, deep breath before launching into recovery killing taxes on carbon emissions which, in all likelihood, will do little to solve the "problem" but rather will fund more inefficient Federal programs.

One item Jacoby did not mention is the blatant conflict of interest that Pachauri (the head of the IPCC) engaged in while promoting the flawed findings of his Nobel prize winning study (anyone else think that the Nobel panel is looking more ridiculous every day?). Pachauri should be removed along with any others who either deliberately, or negligently produced this fatally flawed document on which government's around the world place so much reliance for their policy making.
If Right leaning political spectators have little respect for insitutions like the No

To suggest that there is no basis for a healthy distrust of current global warming science is absurd and is symptomatic of the arrogance displayed by a segment of the scientific community when dismissing the arguments of "deniers" or "flat earthers". Scientists should be curious and constantly questioning.......this crowd is neither, they are only interested in convincing us (as opposed to proving) they are right. I'm a long way from buying it.

If Right leaning political spectators have little respect fo internatinal institutions like the Nobel panel, or the UN, then why do they refernce them in arguments all the time. And Mr. G, dont you think that progressive thought in the US on any subject almost always gets exaggerated when trying to push policy through the beltway? Its amazing the mocking people in the global warming community recieve from commentators who could care less about the environment, and have ZERO knowledge how free markets , and economics work. I read the whole post, I enjoyed, but I am still a pro-environment, pro business person, kind of like Hank Paulson.
Also, be careful when referencing "reovery killing taxes" we taxed the hell out of the individual in 1993 top rate went to 39.6%, and the economy boomed like never before, not cause and effect, but two events that happened simultaneously.

If Right leaning political spectators have little respect fo internatinal institutions like the Nobel panel, or the UN, then why do they refernce them in arguments all the time.

Simple, because it is clear that governments are unduly influenced by those bodies in formulating policy. Does no-one on the left question the credibility of bodies that have produced such flawed work?

boggsman1 wrote:

Its amazing the mocking people in the global warming community recieve from commentators who could care less about the environment, and have ZERO knowledge how free markets , and economics work.

The overwhelming amount of mocking has come from those who have completely bought into the global warming science.....for years they have dismissed the intellect of anyone who is not on board. Recent revelations have, however, undoubtedly engendered a certain amount of understandable glee from the "deniers".....but to suggest that those of us who are skeptical of the science in this area care nothing for the environment, and are ignorant of free markets or economics, is just silly.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum